MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Prognostic and predictive role of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) in stage III colon cancer treated with celecoxib: Findings from CALGB (Alliance)/SWOG 80702.

2025· article· en· W4406869152 on OpenAlexaff
Jonathan A. Nowak, Qian Shi, Tyler S. Twombly, Levi Pederson, Chao Ma, Juha P. Väyrynen, Melissa Zhao, Yasutoshi Takashima, Ardaman Shergill, Pankaj Kumar, Félix Couture, J. Phillip Kuebler, Smitha Krishnamurthi, Benjamin Tan, Eileen M. O’Reilly, Anthony F. Shields, Shuji Ogino, Alexey Aleshin, Jeffrey A. Meyerhardt

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInflammatory mediators and NSAID effects
Canadian institutionsHôtel-Dieu de Québec
FundersNateraAlliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology Foundation
KeywordsMedicineOncologyColorectal cancerInternal medicineCirculating tumor DNACancerCelecoxibStage (stratigraphy)Cancer researchBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

LBA14 Background: CALGB/SWOG 80702 previously showed that the addition of celecoxib to standard adjuvant chemotherapy with FOLFOX did not significantly improve disease-free survival (DFS) in patients with stage III colon cancer. Here, we evaluated the prognostic and predictive value of ctDNA in identifying a subpopulation of patients who may benefit from celecoxib. Methods: In the subset of patients with adequate biospecimens who participated in CALGB/SWOG 80702, a randomized phase III trial of 3 versus 6 months of adjuvant 5-FU, leucovorin, oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) +/- celecoxib, ctDNA assessment was performed using a clinically validated, tumor-informed 16-plex mPCR-NGS assay (Signatera(TM), Natera, Inc.) after surgery and before the start of adjuvant therapy (baseline). The Kaplan-Meier method was used to describe the distribution of survival time based on ctDNA positivity and log-rank testing was performed. Cox proportional hazards models were used to examine unadjusted associations between ctDNA positivity and disease-free (DFS) and overall survival (OS). Two-sided P values equal to or less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant, except for interaction P values (tested with a likelihood ratio). Results: In total, 1,011 of the 2,526 patients who participated in 80702 had ctDNA testing results from baseline; 189 were ctDNA positive (18.7%). ctDNA positivity associated with male sex, higher T stage, and N2 (versus N1) stage. ctDNA positivity was significantly associated with worse DFS (hazard ratio [HR] 6.52 [95% confident interval (CI) 5.09-8.34; p<0.0001] and OS (HR 6.28 [95% CI 4.63-8.51; p<0.0001]). Three-year DFS was 86.6% in ctDNA-negative cases and 36.8% in ctDNA-positive cases. Among patients who were ctDNA negative, celecoxib use was not significantly associated with worse DFS as compared to placebo (HR 0.75 [95% CI 0.54-1.05; p=0.095]) with a three-year DFS of 87.7% versus 85.5%, respectively. Among ctDNA-positive patients, celecoxib significantly improved DFS compared to placebo (HR 0.59 [95% CI 0.42-0.85; p=0.004]) with a three-year DFS of 44.1% versus 26.6% (P interaction = 0.25). Similar results were seen for overall survival with a hazard ratio of 0.86 (95% CI 0.56-1.33; p=0.49) for ctDNA negative cases and 0.63 (95% CI 0.41-0.96; p=0.028) for ctDNA-positive cases for celecoxib versus placebo (P interaction = 0.28). Conclusion: In a randomized phase III adjuvant therapy trial for stage III colon cancer, ctDNA was highly prognostic of DFS and OS. ctDNA positivity also appeared predictive of the benefit of adjuvant celecoxib for DFS and OS. These results suggest a potential role for ctDNA in determining which patients should consider celecoxib in addition to standard FOLFOX adjuvant therapy. Clinical trial information: NCT01150045 .

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.483

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.352 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicInflammatory mediators and NSAID effectsFrench-language works237,207